At least someone finally stopped being a p***Y and came out and said it. Other people's lives are a small price to pay for the false sense of security and downright FUN! that a gun provides.

Now let's take it a step further...are you okay with massacres involving friends or family as long as you get to keep your guns?

You are never ok with a massacre. At least not a sane person. But you then have to realize you can't make guns illegal just because a gun was used in a murder.

I am on the record as being ok with CA style rules for the whole country. Every gun registered, every gun bought with a background check, a waiting period to get your gun, and a clip size of no more then 10.

I think you can still have tons of fun with guns and protect yourself under those rules.

But I'm not stupid enough to really think that means i won't get shot or murdered just as easy if people had 20 round clips. Its just that you have to give the liberals something to feel like they are governing well.

Are there more gun deaths in the sates that allow high capacity clips then in the states that don't?

Blowing through a stop sign saved our lives one time. We were camping in a rural mtn. area a few years ago and I was coming up on a 4 way stop sign. I notice in my rear view mirror an oar truck coming up on me fast almost out of control like with his wheels smoking. I didn't hesitate to step on the gas after seeing the coast was clear (cross traffic). Sure enough that truck blasted straight through the stop sign and I barely got out of it's way stomping on the gas.

Sure glad I had the opportunity and freedom to take liberty with that stop sign law instead of say... having your car forced to automatically stop (by way of say electronic device) at every stop sign.

How 'bout you? Wouldn't YOU want this freedom of choice. It's all about personal responsibility. Freedom has it's price.

Blowing through a stop sign saved our lives one time. We were camping in a rural mtn. area a few years ago and I was coming up on a 4 way stop sign. I notice in my rear view mirror an oar truck coming up on me fast almost out of control like with his wheels smoking. I didn't hesitate to step on the gas after seeing the coast was clear (cross traffic). Sure enough that truck blasted straight through the stop sign and I barely got out of it's way stomping on the gas.

Sure glad I had the opportunity and freedom to take liberty with that stop sign law instead of say... having your car forced to automatically stop (by way of say electronic device) at every stop sign.

How 'bout you? Wouldn't YOU want this freedom of choice. It's all about personal responsibility. Freedom has it's price.

I understand you're using the stop sign in your analogy because that was the example he gave you to use, but come on, it's an absolutely awful comparison.

To make it even remotely similar, you'd have to say you should have the freedom of choice to get your own big ass truck and maneuver it into position to block the other truck, all while other smaller cars are darting in and out of traffic and there is just as good a chance of you running over one of the other cars as there is actually stopping the other truck.

Again and for the millionth time, no one is talking about banning guns. What is being brought up are moderate, reasonable measures to prevent stuff like this from happening, or at the very least lessen the impact by regulating types of weaponry and ammunition.

I understand you're using the stop sign in your analogy because that was the example he gave you to use, but come on, it's an absolutely awful comparison.

To make it even remotely similar, you'd have to say you should have the freedom of choice to get your own big ass truck and maneuver it into position to block the other truck, all while other smaller cars are darting in and out of traffic and there is just as good a chance of you running over one of the other cars as there is actually stopping the other truck.

Wow, that's convoluted.

Quote:

Again and for the millionth time, no one is talking about banning guns. What is being brought up are moderate, reasonable measures to prevent stuff like this from happening, or at the very least lessen the impact by regulating types of weaponry and ammunition.

They tried that from '94 to '04. And there was still OKC, Columbine, and 9/11 among others. Turns out Evil doesn't keep up on the latest Federal Rules and Regulations.

If people can't use guns they will just put laser beams on cats. Idiots!

We will have to wait and see what King Obama plans for his decrees on gun control. I love how because he tells us before hand he is going to circumvent Congress that makes it ok. Good thing is if its all executive orders a new president can just overturn them easily. But the real reason is hes trying to avoid having to make dems who will be running for re-election in 2 yrs be blamed for it.

They think maybe if the guy goes to reload his clip he gets taken down. Where if he had a 30 round clip he would have kept shooting.

They think that more background checks will lead to less guns being sold to felons and other criminals/crazy people.

I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

This is such a played out and ill-conceived argument, and for the millionth time, it takes a different type of psychological profile to kill with different methods.

I'm sure the kid who stole his mom's guns, killed her and shot up a school would have just rented a moving van and bought a bunch of fertilizer instead.

Yeah, the Aurora shooter was totally going to settle for knifing an entire theater to death after posing for the camera in full battle gear just hours before the shooting.

Speaking of ill conceived, this is a comic tapdance you're doing. Just last post you're talking about how nobody wants to ban guns. Now suddenly you're pretending some fantasmic legislation would've forced the aurora shooter to resort to cutlery.

I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

This is the essence behind guys like Hough trying to have it both ways. The end goal is virtually no civilian owned guns. They'll retreat from saying it that way every time you confront them with it, But their utopian expectations can only lead there. And they know it. They just can't say it.

The process they hope to use is to slowly take something away every time the headlines enable them to. And in a national media covering 300+ million people, they know that will be a regular opportunity.

This is the essence behind guys like Hough trying to have it both ways. The end goal is virtually no civilian owned guns. They'll retreat from saying it that way every time you confront them with it, But their utopian expectations can only lead there. And they know it. They just can't say it.

The process they hope to use is to slowly take something away every time the headlines enable them to. And in a national media covering 300+ million people, they know that will be a regular opportunity.

Yeah, that's exactly what I want. No guns. I don't own one or anything. I mean, "technically" it's considered an antique, but it still fires live, and is just as capable of killing today as it was 150 years ago. Of course, it's a muzzle loader and only able to fire one round at a time, but...when you think of it, I'm following more closely to the intent of the Second Amendment than most of you mouth-breathing gun crusaders.

Then you have the constitutionality issue. The Second Amendment clearly allows for the ownership of guns. What it doesn't specifically allow for are weapons that no civilian has any business owning, and there is absolutely no case that can be made for the "need" to own assault rifles or 100 round clips.

Citizens in other nations are no less free than we are yet they don't have to suffer ~100,000 firearm-caused deaths and injuries annually.

Abso-freakin-lutely not! In this particular tragic incident Ms. lanza was horribly irresponsible. She had and arsenal of weapons not properly secured with an obviously mentally ill person with access to them.

Many of the tragic shooting incidents that happen in homes are the result of gross negligence by the gun owners. My wife and I have a total of 7 firearms that are locked up in a gun safe and we are the only ones with the combo. We both have completed a law enforcement certified gun safety course as well as a concealed handgun course. Getting rid of guns is not the answer. IMO everyone who buys a firearm of any sort must go through some sort of safety course before they receive that purchased firearm.

I'm actually ok with another ban on all AR type weapons as well as high capacity clips. The AR rifles are fun to shoot on a range but absolutely unecessary unless there is an imminent zombie invasion that I am unaware of in which case I retract my last statement.

Yeah, that's exactly what I want. No guns. I don't own one or anything. I mean, "technically" it's considered an antique, but it still fires live, and is just as capable of killing today as it was 150 years ago. Of course, it's a muzzle loader and only able to fire one round at a time, but...when you think of it, I'm following more closely to the intent of the Second Amendment than most of you mouth-breathing gun crusaders.

Great great. You want guns. Just ones that are hopelessly useless in any practical application. And far more dangerous to the operator to boot. Weren't you saying something about accidental deaths before? Get a hundred million gun owners playing with black powder in their homes and then tell me how much you care about each and every life.

Quote:

Then you have the constitutionality issue. The Second Amendment clearly allows for the ownership of guns. What it doesn't specifically allow for are weapons that no civilian has any business owning, and there is absolutely no case that can be made for the "need" to own assault rifles or 100 round clips.

So my freedom is based on what you feel I "need"

Maybe this'll include a Presidential EO requiring criminals to give 60 seconds notice before entry so musket nation has adequate time to get loaded and ready. (God help them if they miss)

No, your freedom is based on the interpretation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Limits on rights are a common thing, especially when those rights directly result in loss of life. You are not able to shout fire in a crowded movie theater, nor are you allowed to threaten the life of another person, yet we still have the Right to Free Speech. You can own any type of car you want, but you can't drive any car you want. It needs to be street legal.

Guns, while some serve a useful purpose, need regulation. While it may be the gun holders who kill people, you can't regulate the people, so you must regulate the guns. To say that people who want to kill will find a way to kill no matter what shows a complete lack of understanding of criminal psychology and psychological profiling.

I think you're missing the point. There's no 'solution' to crazy people harming other people.

The best you can do is keep on the lookout and petition for a system that allows troubled people to be worked with BEFORE they do something terrible. And this would have benefits far beyond stopping an occasional mass shooting.

I think you're missing the point. There's no 'solution' to crazy people harming other people.

That's not the way the NRA sees it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

The best you can do is keep on the lookout and petition for a system that allows troubled people to be worked with BEFORE they do something terrible. And this would have benefits far beyond stopping an occasional mass shooting.

Do we really want the gubmit to know everyone's mental health status?

The Swiss have nearly as many guns per capita as we do, but the cost they pay in fatalities and injuries is much lower. Why?

I love when people use this quote. It demonstrates that the Founding Fathers didn't really believe what you think they did.

Hey Ben, would you like to explain how state constitutions requiring the service of able-bodied men during times of war isn't giving up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety? How about why the framers of the Constitution explicitly spelled out Congress' power to tax, making me give up my right to property, for whatever benefits I'm supposed to be getting, not the least of which is the safety provided to me by the armed forces?

Or maybe, just maybe...does it mean that this nation was founded on compromise, and the blind adherence to the letter of the Constitution is just as much of a detriment to the country as disregarding it entirely?